Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.
Actually, as a native English speaker living in Germany, I find Germans make these kinds of errors significantly less than native English speakers.
Germans make a lot of other mistakes in grammar, spelling and so on (including some hilarious mistranslations when they think in German and speak English); but things like the apostrophe rules don't seem to be as much of a problem for them (or at least, far easier than me dealing with German comma rules...).
I'd love to write a longer answer, but I've posted enough on this topic really and I've got a family I should be spending time with right now; so I'll keep it short.
Basically, I don't disagree with anything you say other than definitions. I was never trying to say that one is CONSCIOUSLY selfish; only that a selfish motive underlies those conscious decisions in all cases (for "normal" people). I think perhaps we may be in agreement on that from reading your post (although I'm not totally sure) and you're more concentrating on the rational (conscious) motivation whereas I was talking subconscious.
As a side note: I unfortunately can't take much from your hunger/thirst example. I have a rare and bizarre condition where I'm unable to feel hunger. The verdict is still out as to whether I feel thirst or not, since I do feel "dry" if I don't consume enough liquids, but I don't know if that's the same as thirst or not (some people say it is; others say thirst is an extra feeling beyond that - like hunger (which is not a particularly useful definition to me)).
Right - off to play with my daughter before she goes to bed.
I'd love to write a long reply - this is a really good post... but I've got to go play with my daughter before she goes to bed... I spend too much time at work as it is and I don't see her nearly as much as I'd like. So, a short reply will have to do.
Basically, I think you just wrote a really good argument for communism. However, as we (hopefully) all well know, communism is a great system for rational non-greedy actors; but since humans aren't always rational and often greedy, the system breaks down very quickly and turns bad fast. Sad, but true.
I think you're right; my wording for the second sentence you quoted was sloppy - I stand by the first one though.
I definitely think a fly isn't aware of "I will die if I get swatted"; but I also don't think it's aware of "fear" either (and therefore also not "happiness" or "sadness"). At that level of creature, I don't think they're much more than living automatons with no real awareness of any kind that we'd recognise as such. The flying away when you swat at them is (in my opinion/understanding) purely instinct with no decision making going on at all. Move up to larger animals and I'll certainly concede that at the border before we'd call things "conscious" there are almost certainly feelings resembling happiness and sadness (where that border is however and how it's defined, is a very debatable topic that I'd rather not get in to - it raises a LOT of further discussion and gets in to things like "free will" rather rapidly)
The real irony here is the self-pleasure you gain from believing you know the answer to it all.
I'm so glad that's NOT a pleasure I have. Knowing the answer to it all would be extremely dull.
I present here only my humble opinion and sincerely hope for someone to come out of the woodwork and convince me I'm wrong.
There's nothing more fun than learning something new; especially when it goes against what I already thought. That doesn't mean however that I'll blindly accept being wrong just because someone jumps up and down yelling "you're wrong" - I need convincing arguments that I can't fault the logic, reasoning or premises of. If I disagree with a premise, I'll ask for that to be explained also.
You are not far off though, try replacing "selfishness" with "programming", and see what you then get.
Unfortunately, meaningless gibberish... I'm afraid you've lost me there. Care to explain?
So.. We should take your word, because you did drugs? Drugs are ANTI-meditation. They harm your mind and body.
Rarely has someone demonstrated my sig so perfectly. In case you're reading with signatures turned off, it says: "Psychedelics have been shown to cause paranoia, confusion and total loss of reality - in those who have never taken them".
You sir, clearly are suffering from a complete misunderstanding of the effects of psychedelic substances. Your first mistake is conflating all drugs as being the same sort of thing.
All drugs, whether legal or illegal, are things that effect the mind and body. HOW they effect the mind and body however is dependent on what you're taking. Aspirin thins your blood; Vitamin K thickens it. Speed makes you edgier; marijuana makes you calmer. Psychedelics remove the natural filters you have on your mind (somewhat required for daily life - filtering isn't a bad thing most of the time).
This "removal of filters" is the reason users of these substances often describe it as "seeing the world anew" or "gaining insights".
Meditation is about watching what is, see it for what it is and removing ALL the illusions, not creating more of them.
Removing the illusions is exactly what happens when I take LSD. The world, raw and unfiltered. Often scary, but I learn a lot every time.
To be fair, there are visual distortions (quite strong at times) which do not reflect reality, but at no time does one believe they're real and so they can be enjoyed and appreciated as the illusions they are without them interfering with the new-found clarity of everything.
By any normal definition, if you do something that is partly to make you feel good and partly to make someone else feel good, that is not a purely selfish act.
I feel you're missing my point. I wasn't talking about an act that is "partly to make me feel good and partly to make someone else feel good" - that is fairly irrelevant actually; I was arguing that the very act of making others feel good (whether or not it also makes you feel good directly) is something you'll only do if you benefit from it (either directly through immediately feeling good about having done it; or indirectly through getting them to act more favourably towards you) and is therefore inherently selfish.
I really don't think my definition of "selfish" is so far off from the meaning of the word according to most reference texts; however perhaps from "common daily usage" based on the responses I'm seeing here.
Reducing it all to "they're doing it because they fear punishment if they don't." is not accurate.
Agreed, which is why I didn't reduce it all to that...
Some people do things because they're looking for something; be it greater understanding of themselves or others, insight into something that is bugging them, or other wisdoms.
But now ask why they want to do that... Perhaps because it makes them feel better to have these insights, wisdom or so forth?
The quest for knowledge is a noble thing indeed, and something I eagerly participate in (often to the point of minor self-harm, such as forgetting to eat for a few days while researching stuff (WAY less often since I got married and my wife started taking care for that sort of thing though)); but I make no illusions as to the REASON I do it... that being, that I enjoy both the activity and the results.
But he could have got that same feeling by posting off a cheque to a homeless charity if that's all it was about.
But perhaps that wouldn't bring him as much personal "good feelings"... he wanted more, so he did more.
On a level which you seem unable to comprehend, he wanted to share in other people's suffering directly in order to understand it, and, yes, I suppose you could say that he was "selfishly" making himself a better person, more rounded and self-actualized person by doing so.
Well, yeah, that's exactly what I'd say.
I think a lot of the responses to my post are gut reactions of "hey, he called me selfish! What a dick!". At no point did I say selfishness was bad or wrong. It just is what it is.
Therein lies the subtle difference between "entirely" and "always a factor". "Entirely" implies that every decision is provided sufficient justification by a primary motivator composed of selfishness, and there are no secondary motivators. However, "always a factor" implies that selfishness may be either a primary or secondary motivator, depending on the person, and that other motivators may be present and may even be stronger than selfishness.
I like where you're going with that; but while I haven't yet stopped to think it through in entirety, I'm pretty certain that every primary motivator I have would have to lead back to selfishness when following the reasoning. Basically, if I take the approach of a 3 year old and just don't stop asking "why" to every statement in the reasoning, it will always eventually lead back to "because I want to", which itself leads to "because it'll make me happier" (i.e. the selfish answer).
If someone can provide me with an example that doesn't (for them), I'd like to see it, to see if it does lead back to that for me or not.
Because despite their complexity, no simpler theory has yet been proposed that matches the facts quite as well...
This is not factually true. You meant to say "no simpler and falsifiable theory has yet been proposed that matches the facts quite as well"
Otherwise the theory that "god(s) are actively making everything happen the way it does because that's the way they want it" would technically be simpler and fit the facts better.
I'm not sure that's true though. As soon as you add the idea of a god or gods, you have to build up a whole new set of laws for the universe for them to exist in. If you assign omnipotence to them (as do many religions), you also have to deal with new paradoxes like the old "unstoppable force / immovable object" rubbish (more or less a proof that omnipotence is a meaningless concept). I think adding gods to the equation makes things significantly more complex than even our most outlandishly complex hypotheses.
It's also one of the reasons I'm more "left" leaning politically - I want "society" (with my and other peoples money) to take care of the lesser fortunate people so I don't have to...
All atheist should visit Cancer hospitals to challenge their own perspectives on religion. Faith is a great coping mechanism. Not just for the patient but their families.
I hear this sort of thing a lot. It may well be a great coping mechanism, but it's a lie. Believing that someone is going to cure cancer in the next few days is also a great coping mechanism, but also a lie... you don't see people going around the cancer wards talking about that do you?
Your post was rather dripping with sarcasm, but I'll bite for one part...
I would be honored if you could show me which of his teachings (from 2500 years ago) are mystical ideas that go against the simplest definitions of reality. With my limited knowledge of Buddhism, it's not easy to separate the abhorrent mysticism from the ideas which seem logically sound.
Since you quoted from that wikipedia page, allow me to do the same - directly below the bit you quoted (emphasis mine):
He stated that there is no intermediary between mankind and the divine; distant gods are subjected to karma themselves in decaying heavens
He quite clearly believed and taught about spiritual divinity and gods. These are mystical beliefs.
I do grant that there are a lot of logically sound ideas at the base of Buddhism, and it is those - not the quotes from the Dalai Lama - that make me consider it less abhorrent than other religions. It still doesn't change the fact that there is mysticism involved and that in and of itself is what I find abhorrent.
Serious question, but how do you find such things as M-Theory or Quantum Mechanics to be the simplest explanation?
Because despite their complexity, no simpler theory has yet been proposed that matches the facts quite as well...
Plus, the jury is still firmly out on M-Theory (although I do admire the elegance, even if it turns out to be horribly wrong)
Also with regards to scientific research that strips away the mysticism, there is actually quite a bit of solid scientific research into meditation that has been going on the past couple years that have been pointing to a number of positive effects due to it.
Oh definitely - that's the sort of research I'm interested in. I have no doubt meditation can be extremely useful; but I'd like to understand the mechanisms and whys and wherefores without it all being tied up in mysticism.
I did try an e-cig as a substitute (as you say, not quit method) for awhile some time back before I quit. I think the lack of the MAOIs is actually why I couldn't stick with it permanently.
I have however been considering experimenting with a combination of the e-cig and supplements that assist with dopamine and serotonin (natural MAOIs like turmeric and nutmeg, plus a serotonin/dopamine/noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor such as St John's Wort and top it all off with fish-oil tablets. Theoretically, that should allow me to avoid plummeting dopamine and serotonin levels and thereby avoid the depression that really hit me last time. Of course, it would be an experiment - brain chemistry is far too individual and complex for it to be sure-fire; but I think it's worth a shot and is unlikely to be harmful.
Oh, absolutely... I certainly didn't mean to imply I agree with the guy on everything. Just that I've seen more sanity from him than most other religious leaders (even with the obvious serious faults such as the ones you mentioned).
What did I get out of it, why did I do it for several years? Because it gave me an incredible sense of humility and a true understanding of what I have in life. And it felt good to, on some minimal level, help someone feel a bit better.
People are not motivated entirely by self interest. People do not reason through every decision and categorize things as things that will make them happy or not happy. A lot is going on in the subconscious mind that we are not even aware of and the primary function is not to increase happiness but to increase the likelihood of survival and procreation.
Absolutely... but what I was arguing is that we're "wired" to derive happiness (in general) from the things that increase the likelihood of survival and procreation. By being wired as such, we WANT to do those things, because they make us happy.
I never meant to imply reasoning on a conscious level for these things (that of course also happens; but for the most part, not).
Sorry... we agree with each other entirely. I think you misunderstood my meaning of "contest" (English can be a PITA like that). I was essentially saying that YES, every human is entirely selfish.
Just because you get something in return for being non-selfish at points does not mean you were being secretly selfish. For example, you can give someone a present and get in return a good feeling. The good feeling is selfish, but the giving of the present was altruistic. They don't cancel each other out and leave only selfishness. Both exist.
I completely agree, but think we're perhaps using different definitions of "selfish". I define the above act as selfish because the act would not have been performed had there been no reward (or expectation of reward) through the good feelings that come from giving the present.
I don't deny altruism exists - I just say that it only happens because of reward or expectation of reward - even subconsciously.
(as I just replied to someone else, I'm far from an "Ayn Rand Libertarian" - more Liberal than anything really)
This is the sort of libertarian nonsense that leads philosophers and psychologists to utterly detest randoids.
I find it interesting how often you use the words "randian" and "randroid" in your reply. I, for reference, think that most Libertarians are far too anarchistic for my tastes. I'm more or less liberal leaning, although against government interference in my personal affairs (tightly defined: the moment it starts impacting others, it's no longer my personal affairs and I do think the society should have a say)
A mother throwing herself in front of a car to save her child might be acting in her species self interest, but she's not under any circumstances acting INTENTIONALLY in her OWN percieved self interest.
But here you're twisting what I was saying.
I believe the mother IS acting in her own interest - completely selfishly. She derives happiness from the safety and wellbeing of her child. She knows she'd be devastated if the child were killed. If SHE dies, she dies with the knowledge she's saved the kid; and since there'll be no more "happiness" or "sadness" (assuming no belief in an afterlife); it was a net positive for her in the end. Even if we assume an afterlife, she's probably going to heaven for doing that (depending on one's exact beliefs) and so it's still all good anyway.
We have extensive networks of mirror neurons that give us the ability to empathise with others.
We have deeply wired structures in our brain that cause us to give up comfort for our children.
I don't dispute any of that. However I don't see how it negates what I'm saying...
We can't justify it psychologically without engaging in fundamental ignorance of over a century of psychological research. We can't justify it scientifically because the evidence directly contradicts the thesis.
While it may not be a deliberate strawman, that's a strawman argument nevertheless. You're arguing against something I never said.
Therefore, to be happy, either a) improve your life, b) reduce your expectations or c) change your perception. Looks like this guy went for a mix of (b) and (c). At least that's my take on it.
I think you're probably right. It'd be interesting to see if it's possible to get the same results with (a) and (c); which is what I generally strive to do. I think perhaps (b) is significantly easier than (a); but since I enjoy a challenge, I may as well get the most out of that little boost of happiness there than taking the easier path.
First let me say I really don't want to argue - I actually am very interested in what you're trying to say, but I don't quite get it yet.
Like a lot of people who smoke cigarettes knowing they might get cancer... or the people who like the thrill of exposing themselves to HIV (google bug chasers) they don't care about the consequence they only care about the immediate benefit. Let me stress that, it's not that they think they will escape the consequence.. they know the consequence is coming but simply don't care.
I'm a smoker, who quit and re-started several times - including restarting just yesterday after 5 weeks without.
I also know I won't escape the consequences. These things will probably kill me. But that doesn't go against the idea that I'm striving for happiness above all else; and doing it in an entirely selfish way. I enjoy smoking. I love the way it feels; I love the taste; I love the social aspects it brings with my friends. I also hate that it's going to take me away from my family; and I hate that it's got such a hold over me that when I quit I fall in to a deep depression (I started again yesterday because my wife couldn't handle me being that way - not me).
I chose to smoke again, knowing that the consequences are coming, and I DO care, but right now, the pleasure I get from it (and lack of "negative" feelings I had while not smoking) are something I calculated to be worth it. I'll re-evaluate that sometime and hopefully quit again (permanently); but not right now.
It's actually the people who are really ENTIRELY selfish that are insane. Humans have evolved as social animals and many behaviors that benefit the groups you live in / identify with will be rewarded by the brain in exactly the same manner as selfish behavior is.
Do you have any evidence for this? Searching around, I found a few hits that tend to point in this direction, but nothing definitive.
I think it's entirely possible to explain altruism and other positive social behaviour through selfishness. As I said in my post above; I'm a nice guy - I'm just not under the illusion that I'm not getting anything out of it. And the moment society stops rewarding me for being nice is the moment I stop being nice (I don't expect that moment to ever come to pass, simply because it'd require that every other human being all of a sudden stops acting human - it's natural to reward niceness (for the exact same reason - reciprocation)).
So, I don't doubt that the reward pathways in the brain get lit up like christmas trees through altruism, but I do doubt that the act itself is the underlying cause, but rather the (learned, and perhaps subconscious) realisation that helping the group also helps yourself. If a person were raised where EVERY altruistic act they performed or saw had ONLY negative effects, I would expect the reward pathways to remain dim on future acts (although getting such a person to actually do so might be tricky)
Slashdot Mirror
Why do have so many people problems accepting there are non-native English speakers? It's not difficult.
Actually, as a native English speaker living in Germany, I find Germans make these kinds of errors significantly less than native English speakers.
Germans make a lot of other mistakes in grammar, spelling and so on (including some hilarious mistranslations when they think in German and speak English); but things like the apostrophe rules don't seem to be as much of a problem for them (or at least, far easier than me dealing with German comma rules...).
I'd love to write a longer answer, but I've posted enough on this topic really and I've got a family I should be spending time with right now; so I'll keep it short.
Basically, I don't disagree with anything you say other than definitions. I was never trying to say that one is CONSCIOUSLY selfish; only that a selfish motive underlies those conscious decisions in all cases (for "normal" people). I think perhaps we may be in agreement on that from reading your post (although I'm not totally sure) and you're more concentrating on the rational (conscious) motivation whereas I was talking subconscious.
As a side note: I unfortunately can't take much from your hunger/thirst example. I have a rare and bizarre condition where I'm unable to feel hunger. The verdict is still out as to whether I feel thirst or not, since I do feel "dry" if I don't consume enough liquids, but I don't know if that's the same as thirst or not (some people say it is; others say thirst is an extra feeling beyond that - like hunger (which is not a particularly useful definition to me)).
Right - off to play with my daughter before she goes to bed.
I'd love to write a long reply - this is a really good post... but I've got to go play with my daughter before she goes to bed... I spend too much time at work as it is and I don't see her nearly as much as I'd like. So, a short reply will have to do.
Basically, I think you just wrote a really good argument for communism. However, as we (hopefully) all well know, communism is a great system for rational non-greedy actors; but since humans aren't always rational and often greedy, the system breaks down very quickly and turns bad fast. Sad, but true.
I think you're right; my wording for the second sentence you quoted was sloppy - I stand by the first one though.
I definitely think a fly isn't aware of "I will die if I get swatted"; but I also don't think it's aware of "fear" either (and therefore also not "happiness" or "sadness"). At that level of creature, I don't think they're much more than living automatons with no real awareness of any kind that we'd recognise as such. The flying away when you swat at them is (in my opinion/understanding) purely instinct with no decision making going on at all. Move up to larger animals and I'll certainly concede that at the border before we'd call things "conscious" there are almost certainly feelings resembling happiness and sadness (where that border is however and how it's defined, is a very debatable topic that I'd rather not get in to - it raises a LOT of further discussion and gets in to things like "free will" rather rapidly)
The real irony here is the self-pleasure you gain from believing you know the answer to it all.
I'm so glad that's NOT a pleasure I have. Knowing the answer to it all would be extremely dull.
I present here only my humble opinion and sincerely hope for someone to come out of the woodwork and convince me I'm wrong.
There's nothing more fun than learning something new; especially when it goes against what I already thought. That doesn't mean however that I'll blindly accept being wrong just because someone jumps up and down yelling "you're wrong" - I need convincing arguments that I can't fault the logic, reasoning or premises of. If I disagree with a premise, I'll ask for that to be explained also.
You are not far off though, try replacing "selfishness" with "programming", and see what you then get.
Unfortunately, meaningless gibberish... I'm afraid you've lost me there. Care to explain?
So.. We should take your word, because you did drugs? Drugs are ANTI-meditation. They harm your mind and body.
Rarely has someone demonstrated my sig so perfectly. In case you're reading with signatures turned off, it says: "Psychedelics have been shown to cause paranoia, confusion and total loss of reality - in those who have never taken them".
You sir, clearly are suffering from a complete misunderstanding of the effects of psychedelic substances. Your first mistake is conflating all drugs as being the same sort of thing.
All drugs, whether legal or illegal, are things that effect the mind and body. HOW they effect the mind and body however is dependent on what you're taking. Aspirin thins your blood; Vitamin K thickens it. Speed makes you edgier; marijuana makes you calmer. Psychedelics remove the natural filters you have on your mind (somewhat required for daily life - filtering isn't a bad thing most of the time).
This "removal of filters" is the reason users of these substances often describe it as "seeing the world anew" or "gaining insights".
Meditation is about watching what is, see it for what it is and removing ALL the illusions, not creating more of them.
Removing the illusions is exactly what happens when I take LSD. The world, raw and unfiltered. Often scary, but I learn a lot every time.
To be fair, there are visual distortions (quite strong at times) which do not reflect reality, but at no time does one believe they're real and so they can be enjoyed and appreciated as the illusions they are without them interfering with the new-found clarity of everything.
By any normal definition, if you do something that is partly to make you feel good and partly to make someone else feel good, that is not a purely selfish act.
I feel you're missing my point. I wasn't talking about an act that is "partly to make me feel good and partly to make someone else feel good" - that is fairly irrelevant actually; I was arguing that the very act of making others feel good (whether or not it also makes you feel good directly) is something you'll only do if you benefit from it (either directly through immediately feeling good about having done it; or indirectly through getting them to act more favourably towards you) and is therefore inherently selfish.
I really don't think my definition of "selfish" is so far off from the meaning of the word according to most reference texts; however perhaps from "common daily usage" based on the responses I'm seeing here.
Reducing it all to "they're doing it because they fear punishment if they don't." is not accurate.
Agreed, which is why I didn't reduce it all to that...
Some people do things because they're looking for something; be it greater understanding of themselves or others, insight into something that is bugging them, or other wisdoms.
But now ask why they want to do that... Perhaps because it makes them feel better to have these insights, wisdom or so forth?
The quest for knowledge is a noble thing indeed, and something I eagerly participate in (often to the point of minor self-harm, such as forgetting to eat for a few days while researching stuff (WAY less often since I got married and my wife started taking care for that sort of thing though)); but I make no illusions as to the REASON I do it... that being, that I enjoy both the activity and the results.
But he could have got that same feeling by posting off a cheque to a homeless charity if that's all it was about.
But perhaps that wouldn't bring him as much personal "good feelings"... he wanted more, so he did more.
On a level which you seem unable to comprehend, he wanted to share in other people's suffering directly in order to understand it, and, yes, I suppose you could say that he was "selfishly" making himself a better person, more rounded and self-actualized person by doing so.
Well, yeah, that's exactly what I'd say.
I think a lot of the responses to my post are gut reactions of "hey, he called me selfish! What a dick!". At no point did I say selfishness was bad or wrong. It just is what it is.
Therein lies the subtle difference between "entirely" and "always a factor". "Entirely" implies that every decision is provided sufficient justification by a primary motivator composed of selfishness, and there are no secondary motivators. However, "always a factor" implies that selfishness may be either a primary or secondary motivator, depending on the person, and that other motivators may be present and may even be stronger than selfishness.
I like where you're going with that; but while I haven't yet stopped to think it through in entirety, I'm pretty certain that every primary motivator I have would have to lead back to selfishness when following the reasoning. Basically, if I take the approach of a 3 year old and just don't stop asking "why" to every statement in the reasoning, it will always eventually lead back to "because I want to", which itself leads to "because it'll make me happier" (i.e. the selfish answer).
If someone can provide me with an example that doesn't (for them), I'd like to see it, to see if it does lead back to that for me or not.
Because despite their complexity, no simpler theory has yet been proposed that matches the facts quite as well...
This is not factually true. You meant to say "no simpler and falsifiable theory has yet been proposed that matches the facts quite as well"
Otherwise the theory that "god(s) are actively making everything happen the way it does because that's the way they want it" would technically be simpler and fit the facts better.
I'm not sure that's true though. As soon as you add the idea of a god or gods, you have to build up a whole new set of laws for the universe for them to exist in. If you assign omnipotence to them (as do many religions), you also have to deal with new paradoxes like the old "unstoppable force / immovable object" rubbish (more or less a proof that omnipotence is a meaningless concept). I think adding gods to the equation makes things significantly more complex than even our most outlandishly complex hypotheses.
It's also one of the reasons I'm more "left" leaning politically - I want "society" (with my and other peoples money) to take care of the lesser fortunate people so I don't have to...
Now it says what you actually mean.
Nope... NOW it says what I actually mean.
All atheist should visit Cancer hospitals to challenge their own perspectives on religion. Faith is a great coping mechanism. Not just for the patient but their families.
I hear this sort of thing a lot. It may well be a great coping mechanism, but it's a lie. Believing that someone is going to cure cancer in the next few days is also a great coping mechanism, but also a lie... you don't see people going around the cancer wards talking about that do you?
Your post was rather dripping with sarcasm, but I'll bite for one part...
I would be honored if you could show me which of his teachings (from 2500 years ago) are mystical ideas that go against the simplest definitions of reality. With my limited knowledge of Buddhism, it's not easy to separate the abhorrent mysticism from the ideas which seem logically sound.
Since you quoted from that wikipedia page, allow me to do the same - directly below the bit you quoted (emphasis mine):
He stated that there is no intermediary between mankind and the divine; distant gods are subjected to karma themselves in decaying heavens
He quite clearly believed and taught about spiritual divinity and gods. These are mystical beliefs.
I do grant that there are a lot of logically sound ideas at the base of Buddhism, and it is those - not the quotes from the Dalai Lama - that make me consider it less abhorrent than other religions. It still doesn't change the fact that there is mysticism involved and that in and of itself is what I find abhorrent.
Serious question, but how do you find such things as M-Theory or Quantum Mechanics to be the simplest explanation?
Because despite their complexity, no simpler theory has yet been proposed that matches the facts quite as well...
Plus, the jury is still firmly out on M-Theory (although I do admire the elegance, even if it turns out to be horribly wrong)
Also with regards to scientific research that strips away the mysticism, there is actually quite a bit of solid scientific research into meditation that has been going on the past couple years that have been pointing to a number of positive effects due to it.
Oh definitely - that's the sort of research I'm interested in. I have no doubt meditation can be extremely useful; but I'd like to understand the mechanisms and whys and wherefores without it all being tied up in mysticism.
I did try an e-cig as a substitute (as you say, not quit method) for awhile some time back before I quit. I think the lack of the MAOIs is actually why I couldn't stick with it permanently.
I have however been considering experimenting with a combination of the e-cig and supplements that assist with dopamine and serotonin (natural MAOIs like turmeric and nutmeg, plus a serotonin/dopamine/noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitor such as St John's Wort and top it all off with fish-oil tablets. Theoretically, that should allow me to avoid plummeting dopamine and serotonin levels and thereby avoid the depression that really hit me last time. Of course, it would be an experiment - brain chemistry is far too individual and complex for it to be sure-fire; but I think it's worth a shot and is unlikely to be harmful.
Oh, absolutely... I certainly didn't mean to imply I agree with the guy on everything. Just that I've seen more sanity from him than most other religious leaders (even with the obvious serious faults such as the ones you mentioned).
What did I get out of it, why did I do it for several years? Because it gave me an incredible sense of humility and a true understanding of what I have in life. And it felt good to, on some minimal level, help someone feel a bit better.
And this is exactly the point I was making...
People are not motivated entirely by self interest. People do not reason through every decision and categorize things as things that will make them happy or not happy. A lot is going on in the subconscious mind that we are not even aware of and the primary function is not to increase happiness but to increase the likelihood of survival and procreation.
Absolutely... but what I was arguing is that we're "wired" to derive happiness (in general) from the things that increase the likelihood of survival and procreation. By being wired as such, we WANT to do those things, because they make us happy.
I never meant to imply reasoning on a conscious level for these things (that of course also happens; but for the most part, not).
Sorry... we agree with each other entirely. I think you misunderstood my meaning of "contest" (English can be a PITA like that). I was essentially saying that YES, every human is entirely selfish.
Just because you get something in return for being non-selfish at points does not mean you were being secretly selfish. For example, you can give someone a present and get in return a good feeling. The good feeling is selfish, but the giving of the present was altruistic. They don't cancel each other out and leave only selfishness. Both exist.
I completely agree, but think we're perhaps using different definitions of "selfish". I define the above act as selfish because the act would not have been performed had there been no reward (or expectation of reward) through the good feelings that come from giving the present.
I don't deny altruism exists - I just say that it only happens because of reward or expectation of reward - even subconsciously.
(as I just replied to someone else, I'm far from an "Ayn Rand Libertarian" - more Liberal than anything really)
This is the sort of libertarian nonsense that leads philosophers and psychologists to utterly detest randoids.
I find it interesting how often you use the words "randian" and "randroid" in your reply. I, for reference, think that most Libertarians are far too anarchistic for my tastes. I'm more or less liberal leaning, although against government interference in my personal affairs (tightly defined: the moment it starts impacting others, it's no longer my personal affairs and I do think the society should have a say)
A mother throwing herself in front of a car to save her child might be acting in her species self interest, but she's not under any circumstances acting INTENTIONALLY in her OWN percieved self interest .
But here you're twisting what I was saying.
I believe the mother IS acting in her own interest - completely selfishly. She derives happiness from the safety and wellbeing of her child. She knows she'd be devastated if the child were killed. If SHE dies, she dies with the knowledge she's saved the kid; and since there'll be no more "happiness" or "sadness" (assuming no belief in an afterlife); it was a net positive for her in the end. Even if we assume an afterlife, she's probably going to heaven for doing that (depending on one's exact beliefs) and so it's still all good anyway.
We have extensive networks of mirror neurons that give us the ability to empathise with others.
We have deeply wired structures in our brain that cause us to give up comfort for our children.
I don't dispute any of that. However I don't see how it negates what I'm saying...
We can't justify it psychologically without engaging in fundamental ignorance of over a century of psychological research. We can't justify it scientifically because the evidence directly contradicts the thesis.
While it may not be a deliberate strawman, that's a strawman argument nevertheless. You're arguing against something I never said.
Happiness = Perceived Life / Expected Life
Perceived Life = Actual Life x Perception
Therefore, to be happy, either a) improve your life, b) reduce your expectations or c) change your perception. Looks like this guy went for a mix of (b) and (c). At least that's my take on it.
I think you're probably right. It'd be interesting to see if it's possible to get the same results with (a) and (c); which is what I generally strive to do. I think perhaps (b) is significantly easier than (a); but since I enjoy a challenge, I may as well get the most out of that little boost of happiness there than taking the easier path.
First let me say I really don't want to argue - I actually am very interested in what you're trying to say, but I don't quite get it yet.
Like a lot of people who smoke cigarettes knowing they might get cancer ... or the people who like the thrill of exposing themselves to HIV (google bug chasers) they don't care about the consequence they only care about the immediate benefit. Let me stress that, it's not that they think they will escape the consequence .. they know the consequence is coming but simply don't care.
I'm a smoker, who quit and re-started several times - including restarting just yesterday after 5 weeks without.
I also know I won't escape the consequences. These things will probably kill me. But that doesn't go against the idea that I'm striving for happiness above all else; and doing it in an entirely selfish way. I enjoy smoking. I love the way it feels; I love the taste; I love the social aspects it brings with my friends. I also hate that it's going to take me away from my family; and I hate that it's got such a hold over me that when I quit I fall in to a deep depression (I started again yesterday because my wife couldn't handle me being that way - not me).
I chose to smoke again, knowing that the consequences are coming, and I DO care, but right now, the pleasure I get from it (and lack of "negative" feelings I had while not smoking) are something I calculated to be worth it. I'll re-evaluate that sometime and hopefully quit again (permanently); but not right now.
It's actually the people who are really ENTIRELY selfish that are insane. Humans have evolved as social animals and many behaviors that benefit the groups you live in / identify with will be rewarded by the brain in exactly the same manner as selfish behavior is.
Do you have any evidence for this? Searching around, I found a few hits that tend to point in this direction, but nothing definitive.
I think it's entirely possible to explain altruism and other positive social behaviour through selfishness. As I said in my post above; I'm a nice guy - I'm just not under the illusion that I'm not getting anything out of it. And the moment society stops rewarding me for being nice is the moment I stop being nice (I don't expect that moment to ever come to pass, simply because it'd require that every other human being all of a sudden stops acting human - it's natural to reward niceness (for the exact same reason - reciprocation)).
So, I don't doubt that the reward pathways in the brain get lit up like christmas trees through altruism, but I do doubt that the act itself is the underlying cause, but rather the (learned, and perhaps subconscious) realisation that helping the group also helps yourself. If a person were raised where EVERY altruistic act they performed or saw had ONLY negative effects, I would expect the reward pathways to remain dim on future acts (although getting such a person to actually do so might be tricky)